Peer review policy

Articles published in the Commentationes et dissertationes section are evaluated by two independent reviewers who are not affiliated with the author’s academic institution, under a procedure in which the authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other’s identities (double-blind peer review). The review criteria, in addition to methodological and scholarly soundness, include originality of the approach and its contribution to the advancement of the humanities. Submissions are evaluated fairly and impartially (fair play), solely on the basis of their scholarly merit and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, regardless of the authors’ nationality, race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political views.

For authors

The journal applies a rigorous, two-stage assessment process to all submissions. The peer-review procedure for texts published in this section complies with the review principles set out in the Communication of the Minister of Science and Higher Education dated 2 June 2015 and with the publication ethics principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics).
The first stage of the review process comprises a preliminary assessment of the submission’s scholarly merit by the editor responsible for the relevant issue and verification of its compliance with the following requirements:

  1. The submission must be scholarly and consistent with the journal’s aims and scope (submissions falling entirely outside the journal’s scope will not be accepted).
  2. The submission must comply with the formal and technical requirements set out in the Concise Publishing Guidelines. It may also be rejected because of serious deficiencies in language and style.
  3. The article must be complete, i.e. include a critical apparatus and the metadata listed in the Guidelines for Authors, and must be anonymised. The metadata must be entered in the form on the journal’s OJS platform and attached as a separate file.
  4. The article must not have been previously published in any form or simultaneously submitted for publication in another journal.
  5. Before being sent for peer review, every submission undergoes an originality check using Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate. Submissions in which plagiarism is detected are rejected.

The Editorial Team may request changes to submitted materials and make their progression to the next stage of the peer-review process conditional upon the implementation of those changes.

Submissions that meet the above requirements proceed to the second stage of assessment:

  1. The submission is sent to two reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected from outside the institution at which the author is employed, including experts based abroad, and must have no conflict of interest with the author. A conflict of interest includes a reporting relationship (professional subordination), direct research collaboration during the two years preceding the year in which the review is prepared, or a close personal relationship (kinship up to the second degree or marriage) between the reviewer and the author of the submission. Members of the Editorial Team (i.e. the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, and Editorial Secretary) and members of the Editorial Board may not serve as reviewers. The Editorial Team also makes every effort to ensure that no other relationship exists between the authors and reviewers that might compromise the objectivity and integrity of the review.
  2. Reviewers must hold at least a doctoral degree.
  3. Reviewers independently evaluate the submission under a double-blind peer review procedure in which the authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other’s identities. The Editorial Team safeguards the identities of both parties.
  4. Reviews must be submitted in writing using the form available on the journal’s OJS platform and must conclude with an unequivocal recommendation to accept the reviewed material for publication or reject it.
  5. The peer-review process is overseen by the thematic editors of individual issues, who specialise in the subject matter covered by the relevant issue.
  6. An article is accepted for publication if it receives two positive reviews. If one review is negative, the Editorial Team may, in justified cases, commission a third review.
  7. Reviews are prepared in confidence; their content is disclosed only to the authors and members of the Editorial Team and Editorial Committee.
  8. The author or authors may choose not to address comments made by the reviewers; however, they must provide a written justification for their decision.
  9. The Editorial Team reserves the right to require revisions or additions arising from the reviewers’ comments. Authors must implement the required changes within the deadline agreed with the Editorial Team.
  10. Essays, review articles, and polemical contributions are not subject to the above procedure. These materials are evaluated by members of the Editorial Team. In cases where there is a substantive justification, the Editorial Team may appoint an external reviewer.
  11. The final decision to reject or accept a submission for publication is made by the handling editor in consultation with the members of the Editorial Team.

Peer-review timeline

  1. The first stage of assessment takes up to one month from the date on which the submission is received.
  2. Reviewers are normally allowed approximately two months to prepare their reviews. If a third review must be commissioned, the process is extended by a further month.
  3. Authors are informed of the progress made in evaluating their submissions.

For reviewers

  1. Reviews must be submitted in writing using the form available on the journal’s OJS platform and must conclude with an unequivocal recommendation to accept the reviewed material for publication or reject it.
  2. Reviewers evaluate the submission primarily with regard to its scholarly merit, originality of its approach, clarity and coherence of its argument, engagement with current scholarship, use of an appropriate methodology, and the contribution of its conclusions to the advancement of the field.
  3. Reviewers and authors remain unaware of each other’s identities (double-blind peer review). The Editorial Team safeguards the identities of both parties; review reports containing no information that could identify the reviewer are forwarded to the authors after the “For the Editors” section has been removed from the review form.
  4. Submissions are evaluated solely on the basis of their scholarly merit and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, regardless of the authors’ nationality, race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political views, in accordance with the principles described on the Ethical Standards page. The Editorial Team will reject reviews that clearly fail to meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scholarly review or require them to be revised or supplemented. This applies particularly to perfunctory or internally inconsistent reviews and those containing unsupported opinions.
  5. The reviewer must notify the Editorial Team of any possible similarity between the article under review and any previously published material, as well as of any ethical concerns.